Gun control, abortion rights, drug legalization — it seems like every argument these days claims that if X happens, then Y will follow, and we’ll all be doomed to Z. Is the slippery-slope argument a valid logical construction or just a game of feelingsball?
My name is Ben Gold.
I am a criminal defense attorney, and my practice is in military law.
Gold served as a surface warfare officer in the navy.
And after tours in the Persian Gulf, in Hawaii, he decided to go to law school.
He wanted to keep working with the military, but he didn't want to be a lawyer for the military.
I had seen some serious flaws in the military justice system, and I wasn't quite sure I wanted to be fully a part of it.
During law school, Gold learned to analyze legal arguments, and there was one type of argument that he kept coming across.
I think I heard a clip in some podcast or something of a politician who had said, you know, allowing for universal background checks, it's a slippery slope from there, because what prevents the government from then instituting entirely new and different surveillance programs?
Ah, yes, the slippery slope argument.
I thought to myself, well, there's a lot of things that would prevent that from happening.
For instance, a new law would have to be made.
There'd be legislation, there would be a new Supreme Court ruling.
That said, the slippery slope argument is pretty much everywhere these days, at least in the media and in politics.
If we make the ars, you have to register them or they're banned.
Then the next step is a handgun.
That's the slippery slope.
If we're just willing to cancel student loan debt, why can't we just cancel credit card debt, mortgage payments?
Again, it just leads to the slippery slope.
If we can't reach a point of integrity, honesty, and decency, we just slide down a slippery slope to chaos and fascism.
Have you ever wondered how the slope became so slippery?